Human thinking is reaching the end of its usability

Carlo Roosen

Super-human artificial intelligence (SHAI) will come. To be able to deal with it, we will need to understand how it thinks. Yes, it will think, much in the same way as humans do, but with a much larger capacity. That is what I mean with super-human intelligence.

Before we can understand SHAI thinking, we must understand our own thinking. Especially we need to know its limitations, the point where we have to say "sorry, this is beyond what can be captured in human concepts".

Thinking cannot be understood by more thinking. We need episodes of non-thinking to step back and observe. When you are without thoughts and are able to catch the first thought that pops into your head, you are on track to learn a few new things. Your first thought might be "Now, what is the purpose of all this non-thinking!?". And then, only when you are alert enough, you might feel a little surprize, where did this voice come from? Indeed, that is what it is, a voice-in-the head. It speaks with the sound of your own voice and in a natural language (I discovered that I think in English quite often, even while Dutch is my first language). The next moment you are back in thinking, meaning that you don't hear the voice anymore, you have become identified with the voice.

Eastern philosophy can teach a lot about these things, Tao Te Ching and other books. My favorite is Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now, because he gives a more western view. But even Eckhart Tolle can talk in very vague terms, and you may not like that. But what he says really doesn't matter too much. The only thing that is important in his teachings is that you learn to take a break from compulsive thinking.

Ok, this might all be familiar stuff for you. Yet, this is all not too well integrated with modern philosophy. For instance, I often hear philosophers talk about consciousness being caused by thinking. I can testify that it is not the case, and you can find out for yourself.

When I woke up after a heart surgery, 5 years ago, my memory was completely blank. I didn't know my own name. No memory no thinking, yet I was perfectly conscious. Since that time this happens to me on a daily basis, although my memory does not drop out completely anymore. Without thoughts, I can eat my lunch, make coffee perfectly. When somebode asks something simple, I can answer. But cooking a meal is challenging, because I need to make decisions.

I believe this non-thinking state is similar to what animals experience. Some animals have learned a few words, but as far as I know, they do not have these trains of thoughts like we humans have. I don't think they have words that imply causality, for instance.

Current AI works much the same as animal brains. I will not address AI consciousness here, that is a topic on its own. But the way it operates looks similar to how animals behave, in a kind of linear way from input to output. And even while ChatGPT operates on text, internally this text is just data. But this also is discussion for a later date. I just want to point out here what the relation is between this non-thinking business and our understanding of AI.

[removed by author]

Human thinking is reaching the end of its usability. The world is too complex for humans to understand it and coordinate it. I read this article on the forum https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15497/quo-vadis-united-kingdom . I am not a pessimist by nature, but the signs are clear. Modern society is destroying itself. The place for change is here, on this forum. But we need real answers, not a succession of thoughts.

I like sushi

When I woke up after a heart surgery, 5 years ago, my memory was completely blank. I didn't know my own name. No memory no thinking, yet I was perfectly conscious. Since that time this happens to me on a daily basis, although my memory does not drop out completely anymore. Without thoughts, I can eat my lunch, make coffee perfectly. When somebode asks something simple, I can answer. But cooking a meal is challenging, because I need to make decisions.

I believe this non-thinking state is similar to what animals experience. Some animals have learned a few words, but as far as I know, they do not have these trains of thoughts like we humans have. I don't think they have words that imply causality, for instance. — Carlo Roosen

I know this is practically impossible to explicate but I would appreciate further and more detailed accounts of this please. I would find this EXTREMELY useful to hear an attempt at a first-hand account of this experience (although I understand it is now second-hand to you).

Also, have you read 'My Stroke of Insight' by Jill Bolte-Taylor? She is a neuroscientist who had a stroke and had to relearn pretty much everything.

Carlo Roosen

Yes of course I will do everything I can to describe it. The difficulty of course is that language can refer only to shared experiences, and even then only if we use the same labels. I could call it a "religious experience" for instance, but what does that mean for me and for you?

The good news is that you can experience it yourself quite easily. The urge to think is a strong one, and one of my big questions is why evolution switched from non-thinking (animals) to only-thinking (humans). But any meditation practice is meant to relax that urge.

One of the curious things I encounter daily is what I call "impressions". They feel like old memories, with a very distinct atmosphere or, indeed impression. No images, no stories. Every time completely different, in the same way smells can vary in infinite ways. And they feel pleasant, too.

Only this week I discovered that these impressions naturally come up when you have a new insight. This impression then is attached to the insight and serves as a kind of label for later reference. Apparently in my case this whole mechanism has become detached from its normal purpose, and I get those impression at random times, several times a day.

My Stroke of Insight — I like sushi

I haven't read it, I will. I had no stroke. No diagnosis has been given in my case, except for a conversion syndrome that distorts my left eye on occasion.

Carlo Roosen

further and more detailed accounts of this please — I like sushi

I'll have to think about it. Already it seems I am writing on the edge what is tolerable here...

I like sushi

Yes of course I will do everything I can to describe it. The difficulty of course is that language can refer only to shared experiences, and even then only if we use the same labels. I could call it a "religious experience" for instance, but what does that mean for me and for you? — Carlo Roosen

I have a good enough idea of what you say you have experienced to say that it is likely far more common than you think. Not the EXACT experience, but the same family of experiences (be they brain clots or less apparent physiological/psychological instances).

I mentioned split brain cases to someone recently, and that kind of instance can be related to the kind of 'non-languaged' expression of experience in some way.

I haven't read it, I will. I had no stroke. No diagnosis has been given in my case, except for a conversion syndrome that distorts my left eye on occasion. — Carlo Roosen

I am certain you will find common ground in there.

180 Proof

~~Modern~~ society is destroying itself. — Carlo Roosen

Yes, that's entropy. :fire:

Thinking cannot be understood by more thinking.

And a hand cannot grasp itself just like eyes cannot see themselves and a brain cannot perceive itself. Big whup. But thinking often works, that's all we need to know. "Non-thinking" – autopilot – is involuntary therefore easy, whereas thinking (i.e. learning, creating, reflecting) is voluntary and difficult. The contrast is reflectively instructive. Read Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

And more broadly:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_thought

Yesterday I wrote that I not only have to build this SHAI to save the world, I also have to get philosophy back on track.

You have come to the right place, Carlo, for such delusions of grandeur to be ridiculed. :smirk:

Carlo Roosen

I actually like your reply because it is so easy to refute. If you read Kahneman more carefully you would see his ideas perfectly align with mine. You mix up system 1 with the non-thinking state.

If you think in a compulsive way, it is basically system 1 at work. When you practice a bit more non-thinking inbetween your thinking, is is where creativity comes in. That is what Kahneman refers to as system 2.

And I'd rather be ridiculed than ignored, so thank you for the attention.

Carlo Roosen

Yes, that's entropy — 180 Proof

One example of wrapping a statement in some term without adding understanding. In this case entropy comes from a domain that is very precise - informatica. You apply it loosely to a domain that is highly complex. What do you want to say? Do you want to throw another book at me?

180 Proof

"And I'd rather be ridiculed than ignored, so thank you for the attention." :smirk:

I like sushi

Yesterday I wrote that I not only have to build this SHAI to save the world, I also have to get philosophy back on track. Maybe you think I am arrogant. Believe me, I am not. A better description would be that I feel extremely lonely. It feels like I am in a room with 120 people and they all say that the moon is a cube. — Carlo Roosen

Stating this is not at all likely to help your cause. Some things are best left unsaid. Which you will agree with given what you are hoping to explicate .

Carlo Roosen

ok I've removed it.

jkop

Super-human artificial intelligence (SHAI) will come. — Carlo Roosen

Then why is it taking so long? :roll:

language can refer only to shared experiences, and even then only if we use the same labels. — Carlo Roosen

The sentence 'walking on the moon' refers to an experience that only a few astronauts share. It doesn't suddenly stop referring when the rest of us who lack the experience use the sentence. Furthermore, what else do you expect from language than "only" the same labels? Different labels? :chin:

Carlo Roosen

why is it taking so long? — jkop

Is it taking so long? Computers are around less than 90 years. ChatGPT is only a few years old. The rate of improvement is enormous.

jkop

The rate of improvement is enormous. — Carlo Roosen

What's improved? AI is stuck on simulating intelligence, and simulation is not duplication. Neither a machine nor a human becomes intelligent by merely acting as if it is.

Carlo Roosen

That I do agree with, to some degree. Don't underestimate what happens in neural nets, though. The outcome of, say, chatGPT is what we call 'emergent complexity'. In other words, we have no model of how it works. We know the architecture, the rules. We have the training data and how we train it. But what comes out is really something new, in the sense that nobody can predict it.

The only thing is that the architecture is still too limited such that it only 'sort of' captures the essence what it is trained on. It cannot raise above it. To solve that is the idea that I am working on. But to really understand that idea, you must learn to step out of thinking a bit. I have a bit of a challenge here on the forum to get that across. So if you have some idea what I am talking about, let me know.

I like sushi

But to really understand that idea, you must learn to step out of thinking a bit. — Carlo Roosen

You are talking about 'worded' thought. You will come to understand, if you have not already, that some people cannot 'think' without words. This was a strange thing for me to find out and equally strange for those who cannot think without words to grasp that anyone can think without words.

There will be some people on this forum that simply cannot fathom 'thinking' without words; and others who refer to 'thinking' as only being worded.

T Clark

You will come to understand, if you have not already, that some people cannot 'think' without words. — I like sushi

I don’t think this is true. Do you have a reference I can take a look at?

T Clark

When I woke up after a heart surgery, 5 years ago, my memory was completely blank. I didn't know my own name. No memory no thinking, yet I was perfectly conscious. Since that time this happens to me on a daily basis, although my memory does not drop out completely anymore. Without thoughts, I can eat my lunch, make coffee perfectly. When somebode asks something simple, I can answer. But cooking a meal is challenging, because I need to make decisions. — Carlo Roosen

If you’re interested in knowing more, I highly recommend a book – “The Feeling of What Happens,” by Antonio Damasio. He goes into a discussion of these kinds of symptoms in detail.

I like sushi

↪T Clark

If you speak to enough people some will tell you this.

T Clark

↪T Clark If you speak to enough people some will tell you this. — I like sushi

Cognitive science and psychology say no.

Nils Loc

The urge to think is a strong one, and one of my big questions is why evolution switched from non-thinking (animals) to only-thinking (humans). But any meditation practice is meant to relax that urge. — Carlo Roosen

An interesting analogy would be in the dance of sexual selection, where the subject/object of your desire demands a great performance. If you pass the test, you get to mate. On the other side, you play competitive sports with your own rivals to practice for ever new encounters. The competition of either the love or war dance ensues, age after age, and they are both linked (ex. the Trojan War of Homer's epic). The evolutionary pressure in competition generates new ways of doing (grows the capacity for doing) which get copied for all kinds of ends.

The ability to manipulate the world via thought has been so tremendous that what constitutes the transient subject/object of anyone's desire is so incredibly varied. But behind it all everyone is still just "getting off" in one way or another, under the restrictions and sublimation of culture.

I like sushi

↪T Clark

I have never met Ms. C. Science nor Mr. Psychology. Widen your circle :D

Seriously, you are confusing subjective experience with empirical data. You would hardly tell someone with blind-sight they can see just because they can walk around a room and avoid every object. For them they are blind.

I have met several people who cannot think without words. I first became aware of this when my secondary English teacher told the class he could not think without words - had no subjective capacity to produce images and his dreams were purely auditory. Other people I have spoken to like this do have visual dreams but cannot perform the same visualisation when in a waking state.

It is bizarre, but it is more prevalent than you would think. A lot of people when pressed on this matter do sometimes 'pretend' to fit in. I get random flashes of images when I meditate but some people get nothing other than their own inner dialogue. Some people also insist that 'thinking' has to involve 'worded thought' and they are usually the ones who have a limited visualisation or none at all.

To repeat, some people on this forum have stated they cannot think without words.

T Clark

you are confusing subjective experience with empirical data. — I like sushi

No, you are confusing anecdotal personal impressions with knowledge of how the brain and mind work.

I have met several people who cannot think without words. I first became aware of this when my secondary English teacher told the class he could not think without words - had no subjective capacity to produce images and his dreams were purely auditory. Other people I have spoken to like this do have visual dreams but cannot perform the same visualisation when in a waking state. — I like sushi

I have a friend who has, as she says, no minds eye. She can't imagine, remember, or dream visual images, but she has no problem with representing her other senses mentally. That has nothing to do with being able or unable to think without words. Much of anyone's thinking takes place below the threshold of self-awareness - without words. Words come along fairly late in the thinking process.

A lot of people when pressed on this matter do sometimes 'pretend' to fit in. — I like sushi

My friend didn't "pretend" to fit in, she wasn't aware until late in life that she was any different from other people. Starting from earliest childhood, she just compensated for her handicap without realizing it. No one noticed.

I like sushi

↪T Clark

You are being silly. Bye

I like sushi

↪T Clark

Maybe I was acting harshly above. My comment to the maker of this thread was simply to keep in mind that some people will not accept that 'thought' can exist without 'words'.

That is all. I can absolutely 'think' without the use of 'words'.

My friend didn't "pretend" to fit in, she wasn't aware until late in life that she was any different from other people. — T Clark

That is not what I meant at all btw. People do tend to conform and if they believe something about how they perceive the world differs from others, and they are viewed with deep scepticism, they tend to just say they experience the world like others do. You know this, as does everyone. That is all I meant; AND I have seen people do this firsthand when quizzed about worded thought versus other thought. One minute they state they cannot visualise and when they realised this was 'different' to me they switched. When pressed further they resorted to stating they cannot 'see' or represent ideas in any other way than through worded thought.

There is the then the further problem of measurable data, in terms of fMRI and such, because they are one particular aspect of the empirical evidence. Empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence are close enough when dealing with subjective experiences in the real world. This is simply because we cannot create a 'controlled' setting if the setting is life experience.

I am not trying to twist the meaning of 'anecdotal evidence' here only state that the more subjective the phenomenon under investigation, the more so-called 'anecdotal evidence' becomes meaningful when some rigor is added - hence the field of psychology.

Synesthesia is another instance where experience and thought can become difficult to grasp. Many people can assign colours to abstract ideas where to others this seems utterly ridiculous. Again, this is a 'thought' in some sense of the word, but not something that utilises 'words'. Some people cannot do this. It can be argued by some that this is not 'thinking' though because it does not appear to be guided ... this is precisely the bias some people hold (maybe correctly) regarding what we refer to as 'thought'. Which seems to be more or less what you are saying. We can agree to disagree here.

There is a psychologist (or cognitive neuroscientist/linguist?) who believes that ALL emotions exist only because we created words for them. Crazy as that sounds we can see clear physical changes in a toddlers brain when they first learn the words for colours. Through fMRI it can be seen clear as day that pre-speaking one part of the infants brain lights up when exposed to and focusing on a particular colour, yet when they learn the words for the colours the activity in the brain dramatically shift to the other hemisphere. Of course, this does not present hard evidence for or against, but it is intriguing nevertheless.

Note: I do think Damasio has a point when it comes to viewing consciousness more in line with 'feeling' and his somatic marker view of consciousness. He did a lot to tear people away from the widely held dichotomy of emotion and reason in the public eye.

T Clark

keep in mind that some people will not accept that 'thought' can exist without 'words'. — I like sushi

I think you're right. We see some of them here on the forum - people who think that all thinking is reasoning, which does require language.

Empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence are close enough when dealing with subjective experiences in the real world. — I like sushi

Don't think when I question anecdotal evidence I'm rejecting introspection - self-awareness. I see that as a foundation of philosophical understanding.

It can be argued by some that this is not 'thinking' though because it does not appear to be guided ...this is precisely the bias some people hold (maybe correctly) regarding what we refer to as 'thought'. Which seems to be more or less what you are saying. — I like sushi

Thinking is not "guided." Guided by whom? I think you're talking about the people whom I referred to above who think all thinking is reasoning. And no, this is not what I'm suggesting.

There is a psychologist (or cognitive neuroscientist/linguist?) who believes that ALL emotions exist only because we created words for them. — I like sushi

I think there is some truth to that. If I understand him correctly, Damasio makes a distinction between emotions and feelings. Emotions come instinctively while feelings have to be learned.

I like sushi

I think there is some truth to that. If I understand him correctly, Damasio makes a distinction between emotions and feelings. Emotions come instinctively while feelings have to be learned. — T Clark

Things get messy when people use the same words within different contexts. I personally see philosophy as being one of those fields of interest that plays a large role in sorting out such messes, whilst often also exacerbating them! It gives with one hand and takes with the other :D

Thinking is not "guided." Guided by whom? — T Clark

'Goal Directed' would have been a better way of framing it. As in, merely having a sense of the word "gradation" as possessing the taste of "blackberries" is not really teleologically significant.

Carlo Roosen

There will be some people on this forum that simply cannot fathom 'thinking' without words; and others who refer to 'thinking' as only being worded. — I like sushi

I don't understand what you are saying here. It sounds like two opposite stands, but the first has a double negation and the second has none, so they both point to the same statement.

"people .. cannot fathom 'thinking' without words" = thinking must have words

I like sushi

↪Carlo Roosen

It is pretty simple.

Some people (A) cannot comprehend 'thinking' as X and others (B) refuse to define 'thinking' as X. In both cases A and B would, probably more often than not, state "thinking must have words" (A and B are not mutually exclusive either).

It could be possible that someone who cannot comprehend 'thinking' without words would accept the statements from those who say they can. One need not experience something to believe in its possibility. That is why I wrote 'probably more often than not'.

Carlo Roosen

↪I like sushi

What I see is that you are opposing "cannot comprehend" against "refuse to define". Can you explain that more?

I like sushi

↪Carlo Roosen

If you do not understand, you do not understand.

Someone else can explain if they want to. I already tried.

Human thinking is reaching the end of its usability

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions